[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
> >  The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to
> >  the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market
> >  will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear
> >  to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but
> >  make the obvious loophole less attractive.
> 
> Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8.
> 
> Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's.
> 
> So what is this proposal about?

The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible.

With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started
over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into 
it - exponential, linear, quadratic.  None will be a very reasonable
projection.


But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded
away: let's keep it that way.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150609/6be3e7ec/attachment.sig>